Ted Ankrum Set to File for 10th Congressional District

Ted is a great candidate (2.00 / 1)

looking forward to spreading the word about him to Travis County folks  

Hill Country Ride for AIDSmy HCRA Page

---

by: BeckyH @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 20:06:08 PM UTC

Yay Ted! (2.00 / 1)

Always liked the guy

---

by: George @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 22:48:24 PM UTC

District 10 is winnable (2.50 / 2)

Regardless of what others have said, this district is winnable. We still have over 100 volunteers still connected from his last campaign and can hit the ground running. We know what percentages we need and in what counties. We will take this gerrymandered district back!

Please send a check to;

Ted Ankrum Congressional Committee 2010
13707 Via Siena Ct.
Cypress, TX 77429

Join the Texas CD 10 google group at;

http://groups.google.com/group...

---

by: Kernan Hornburg @ Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 22:52:02 PM UTC

Good news (4.00 / 5)

Glad to see Ankrum step up to give us a fighting change to take back TX-10 in 2010. It's an uphill race, but there's several reasons he'll do better than the 40% he got in 2006:
1) The 2010 anti-incumbent mood will work against McCaul.
2) Ankrum will be a smarter candidate and have an initial rolodex to get a jump start.
3) During one of our wost droughts in decades, the Statesman reported that McCaul was the 7th worst water waster in Central Texas.
4) The growing grassroots network being built in Northern Travis County can almost run on auto-pilot, thus allowing Ankrum to focus on Harris County.
5) McCaul lost a major jobs contract and is proving to be ineffective in standing up for his TX constituents.

This is still the bluest Republican district in Texas, so hopefully Ankrum can pull off the upset victory. He's had the courage to stand up to Tom Delay corruption, so let's get behind his candidacy and turn Texas blue.

---

by: Ian @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 00:35:53 AM UTC

Not True! (0.00 / 0)

TX-10 is R+10, and TX-32 is R+8.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 00:48:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Election results say otherwise (2.50 / 2)

I agree that TX-32 needs attention (and for our candidate to actually file) but TX-10 was the closer race in both 2006 and 2008. If both had plenty of money and equal organization, 32 could possibly be the closer race, but your 'unproductive' rating of Ian's comment is hardly justified.

---

by: George @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:09:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

TX-32 has a filed candidate (0.00 / 0)

A much stronger one than TX-10 if I might add.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:31:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Has Raggio filed? (0.00 / 0)

He's not listed yet, and his website doesn't have any 'news' since the summer.

---

by: George @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 15:16:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes he has (0.00 / 0)

DMN has him filing 12/30, so good luck to him too. That district does have potential.

---

by: George @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 15:26:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes (3.00 / 1)

From Dallas Morning News, December 30:

Raggio, a Democrat, filed papers today to run against Sessions, the Dallas Republican who is seeking an eighth term representing District 32.

---

by: CoolOnion @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 15:27:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Amen to that! (3.00 / 1)

Please lighten up on the ratings, DD. This is a forum for discussion and Ian's was a thoughtful contribution with which you have a quibble.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:24:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ratings (0.00 / 0)

I thought the ratings were suppose to be an honest assessment of what other users felt about a particular comment.

I do feel as if that one comment was unproductive as I also few bullet points 1 & 3 as unimportant.

I also don't believe any of us should focus on turning congressional districts blue when switching the state house and winning some statewide seats are incredibly more important than getting rid of McCaul.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 19:00:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re: Ratings (0.00 / 0)

Ratings are supposed to be an honest assessment of what you feel about a particular comment, but a 1 should be "A rating given by other users that indicates that a comment is inappropriate, lacking content or analysis, or unnecessarily abrasive."

Just because a comment is unproductive doesn't mean that it falls in the above category.  I personally don't see how that particular comment falls through.

For a review, please look over the Community Ratings Guidelines.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 19:37:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It was unproductive (0.00 / 0)

But the comment was not inappropriate or abrasive. I have removed my rating as there is no number for a truly "unproductive" comment.

---

by: DallasDavid @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 19:59:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, 1 is ok for ultimate unproductively (0.00 / 0)

In the way the ratings system works, though, unproductive is defined as "lacking content or analysis."  I think most of us here think that content and analysis in general is productive to the whole conversation, even if we think the analysis is wrong or has already been stated multiple times before.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 20:09:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What ratings mean (0.00 / 0)

A rating of 1 doesn't mean "I strongly disagree". It means "this shouldn't have been posted, even if it doesn't exactly violate Community Standards (which would be worth a 0)". For instance, it applies to posts with serious factual errors, or that just repeat harangues that have already been said 100 times.

None of us are really objective, and we all tend to give higher ratings to posts that we agree with than to those that we disagree with, but the ratings are supposed to be about the quality of the post -- good information, good links, good insight, and good manners.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 19:41:13 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What are you saying? You think CD10 is 60% repug and 40% Dem? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Kernan Hornburg @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:13:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a PVI stat (0.00 / 0)

It is based upon Presidential voting history when averaged and weighted. It means TX-10 votes 10% more republican when compared to the country as a whole, and TX-32 votes 8% more Republican than the country as a whole.

TX-10 had a larger gap to close from 2004 which is why it has a more Republican PVI.

BTW: Comparison

                      Obama/McCain     Kerry/Bush           Net Change
TX-10            44/55 (-11)          38/62 (-24)         +13

TX-32            46/53 (-7)            40/60 (-20)         +13

Conclusion: TX-32 is a more democratic district, even though both moved the same amount to a Democratic position from 2004. BTW, check the 2000 numbers as well. Same rate of movement, both close an 8 point gap from 2000 to 2004.

---

by: trowaman @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:28:53 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me also add as a statistician ... (0.00 / 0)

That R+10 and R+8 are PVI statistics based on the last two presidential elections comparing the vote for president within each Congressional District and the national vote for president.  While they are based on actual election results in which large numbers of people voted, they are based on only two elections.

For one thing, there are so many other factors that differentiate one district from another that the difference between a +8 and a +10 is really not that meaningful based on the results of just two elections. For another, the PVI does not measure how possible it is in each district for a Congressional candidate to outperform the presidential candidate of his own party.

Consider that some other states have voter registration by party or status as an independent. One could imagine two districts with the same PVI but one might have more people registered as independents than the other. In that case we could say things like while TX-10 is R+10, 30% of the voters are registered as independents where as in TX-32 only 20% are independents. The point is there are other factors and the PVI ratings or Cook ratings don't tell us everything we need to know.

In addition, at a trivial level, these are whole-number statistics, so there's the possibility that slight changes in the outcomes would have resulted in both districts being R+9.

If you were talking about the difference between R+5 and R+10, I think you'd be making a more persuasive point. Remember that Chet Edwards's district is R+20, yet he beat his Republican opponent by 4% even though most of the district was new to him due to gerrymandering.

In short, the PVI is guidance, not gospel.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 13:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good article re. your point #1 (1.25 / 4)

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Think maybe you meant "the 2010 anti-Dem-incumbent mood"???  You do realize McCaul is a Rep.?

---

by: sdhook @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 00:53:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The anti-incumbent mood is just that... (0.00 / 0)

anti-incumbent. It's not partisan.

---

by: Kernan Hornburg @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:19:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

good stuff (2.50 / 2)

i'm not a "run everywhere" fanatic, but we can't let folks go unchallenged.

the repubs took the senate by running everywhere.

the dems nearly took BACK the house by just having a name on the ballot (run everywhere).

go ted.

Please refer to KT's signature.

---

by: colin @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:34:23 AM UTC

Ted is an excellent candidate (3.33 / 3)

Ted is damn smart and extremely knowledgeable on the issues, but so are a lot of other people. What sets Ted apart is his intense sense of honor and duty. He didn't run in 2006 from personal ambition --- he ran because it needed to be done, and he put a year and a half of his life into the job. Working on a shoestring budget, he held McCaul to 55% of the vote.

In 2008, Ted was in a good position to run again, but he stepped aside for Dan Grant and Larry Joe Doherty. Ted understood that both Dan and Larry Joe could raise more money than he could, could gather more insider support, and could run a more professional campaign. Putting his ego aside, Ted stepped out of their way.

This year, he's standing up for us yet again. Those of us who live in CD10 owe him our gratitude, and we owe him our help. Let's write him some checks. (I'll give him mine tomorrow.) Let's volunteer our time. Let's make this campaign happen.  

---

by: LSadun @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:44:39 AM UTC

I canvassed the entire northern half of my precinct for Ted ... (0.00 / 0)

... the most Republican part. I figured the Democratic part was already well-covered by the Austin Progressive Coalition volunteers, and I wanted everyone in the more affluent area who was opposed to the war to realize there was a principled veteran whom they could vote for. For me, the 2006 election was about the long-term, and Ted's candidacy gave those of us who've thought the Iraq War was a mistake from the beginning an opportunity to reach out to neighbors and start a dialogue.

This time, I would like to see Ted spend some time raising money and run a campaign that has a more polished look to the materials it puts out: cost-effective, not cheap. I'd like for this campaign to be about beating Mike McCaul.

"The eyes of the people are fast opening! Fight on!"--Andrew Jackson

---

by: Al Stanley @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 12:39:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]